에니어그램 중심가치와 자기해석 수준에 따른 의류 소비자의 구매의사결정 스타일

Fashion Consumers’ Purchase Decision-Making Styles Related to the Enneagram Core Values and Self-Construal Levels

Article information

Hum. Ecol. Res. 2016;54(2):207-225
Publication date (electronic) : 2016 April 15
doi : https://doi.org/10.6115/fer.2016.017
Department of Clothing and Textiles, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea
김수연, 안서영, 고애란
연세대학교 의류환경학과
Corresponding Author: Ae-Ran Koh  Department of Clothing and Textiles, Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Korea  Tel: +82-2-2123-7530 Fax: +82-2-2123-7530 E-mail: arkoh@ yonsei.ac.kr
Received 2016 February 2; Revised 2016 February 25; Accepted 2016 February 29.

Trans Abstract

This study investigated a conceptual framework of fashion consumers’ purchase decision-making styles related to behavioral typology of personality. In response to critiques on fragmented and varied use of personality measurements, this study selectively tested and verified an alternative typological model of Enneagram value systems and self-construal levels that could explain the fashion consumers’ typological propensities in purchase decision-making. One hundred-item measurement scale for the fashion consumers’ purchase decision-making styles was developed based on the extensive literature. Three groups of fashion major students, a total of 107 participants, who respectively participated in 2-hour-long Enneagrams seminars from spring 2013 to fall 2014, were asked to re-sentence the question items to clearly reflect their Enneagram personality to make purchase decisions. Participants described their propensities in their own words about the most comfortable state during the 5-step processes of the purchase decision making process. The revised scale was distributed to 423 participants in January 2016, and the results verified the group differences in various styles in the process of purchase decision-making corresponding to the typological variables discussed in Enneagram. The correlation between Enneagram core values embodied by fashion consumers during the stages of purchase decision-making in extensive levels of self-construal were verified in the context of their fashion decision making. This study found the possibility of the typological approach toward Enneagram types of personality to be applicable to explain and predict peculiar facets of fashion consumers’ purchase decision-making styles.

Introduction

Personality research in the fashion context has been limited throughout history. In the past volumes of the Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles, since 1977 up to December 2015, barely 103 articles are listed under the headings or keywords of personality, an average of 2.7 articles per year. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal has only 71 articles under the headings of personality and 256 articles with the keywords either on individual differences or variable factors related to major units of personality variables. The lack of interest in personality research could be found in the critiques on personality unit structure, which was considered as the foundational question for personality psychology itself [36]. Critiques on personality research had raised by Mischel’s theory of situation-based inconsistency in individual propensities. Cognitive-affective system theory, suggested by Mischel [24], demonstrated the situation-profiles having locus of consistency in personality, and it seemed that trait theory was not sufficient to investigate the propensities of consumer behavior with.

In spite of the inefficacies of academic research on personality in the fashion consumer domain, major textbooks discuss chapters on personality theories that have been majorly viewed as motivational properties of consumer behavior [36]. This study is to take an ongoing approach to adopt an alternative framework of personality which interactively explain consumer propensities in purchase behavior. Recent research in the field of behavioral psychology have taken a piece-meal approach demonstrating each personality trait separately [13, 26], and there have been continuous academic endeavors for decades to embed, test and verify particular personality variables into integrative frameworks [30].

In 1980s, five-factor taxonomy of personality traits had boomed, and numbers of scholars proposed that five dimensions of personality trait, neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness were necessary and sufficient to represent human personality in terms of trait [18]. However, the Big Five taxonomy has not been universally accepted [2]. The only proven hypothesis was that there was general agreement that the Big Five model serves as a useful integrative framework for thinking about individual differences at a fairly high level of abstraction [1].

Subsequently, Schwartz [31] abstracted 57 different values motivating human behavior into 10 value types encompassing similar content. His value typology brought the third wave in personality research. Value-self-behavior connections enhanced attention to explore certain values related to certain behaviors regardless of the circumstances as well as the abstract/concrete levels of the core values in people’s motivation to make reasonable decisions that make sense to themselves, called “realization [31].”

This study embedded nine particular core values listed on the Enneagram typology into more comprehensive and integrative framework by adopting the theory of self-construal, in order to verify the inter-relations and counter-relations of Enneagram core values that could better explain diverse propensities in fashion consumers’ decision-making styles in various occasions in the five possible steps of the consumer decision making process. This study focused on possible explanations of the personality units by observing dispositional entities of fashion consumers in domain-specific context of their decision-making steps for the purchase of fashion products. Enneagram personality model was chosen by the researchers as a follow-up alternative approach toward the personality research.

Enneagram personality inventory, especially in the field of fashion studies, has not been tested with links to consumer behavior in spite of its possibility to be added at some points of existing measurements of fashion consumers’ decision-making propensities with variations. Since Enneagram is relatively easier to understand and adopt to segment motivation-based behaviors [5], it could resolve the empirical difficulties of trait models in personality research, as demonstrated as that “personality characteristics are many and varied, measurements are incomplete and laborious [30].”

The major purpose of this study is to explore the inborn nature of fashion consumers’ purchase decision-making styles in the framework of a proposed model of the Enneagram of personality. Since the Enneagram personality model premised that people’s in-born personality remains relatively stable regardless of the circumstances [5, 21], this study is to examine fashion consumer’s ongoing propensities shown in series of process of purchase decision-making. Rather than attempting to understand the consumers segmented by their personality traits, this study observes peculiar consumer behaviors to extract through stratified sampling of consistent, personal and motivational core values. Enneagram value systems and self-construal levels could explain the decision-making styles shown through behavior.

Enneagram Core Values and Self-Construal Levels

1. Enneagram Core Values

Value is defined as individual’s convictions about what is important and what is not important in life, and values are personal constructs and consistent never-changing beliefs [36]. Numbers of theorists in a variety of fields have emphasized the importance of people’s value priorities in understanding and predicting attitudinal and behavioral decisions [19, 31]. Kohn [19] conceptualized values as consistently enduring personal constructs, which states the stability of values over the lifetime. Human values were also defined by Schwartz [31] as concepts or belief, pertaining to desirable end states, which transcend specific situations, guide selection or evaluation of behavior and events, and are ordered by relative importance.

Schwartz’s [31] typology of values have two aspects, the content of values and the structure of values. The content of a value is its source of motivation, and the structure of values is the relationship between the values. Schwartz’ s typology of values was based upon 57 single values, which was abstracted into 10 value types encompassing similar content. The 10 value types included in the theory are universalism, benevolence, conformity, tradition, security, power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, and self-direction. Schwartz and Boehnke [32] described the relationships among people categorized by 10 value types. The conflict and compatibilities between these values were such that behavior consistent with one value may conflict with another value. The determining factor in the relationship between the values was whether or not their motivational goals are compatible or not. Conflicts between specific values (e.g., power vs. universalism and tradition vs. hedonism) were recently reported as “near-universal [33].” They described several dynamic processes that accounted through circular structure. These processed the idea toward a unifying theory to understand consumer behavior.

Major limitations of Schwartz et al.’s [33] value categorization was reported as the validity of the way to measure it. The ten basic values emerge whether people report their values explicitly or whether the observers infer their values indirectly from their judgments of how much various other people are like them. Schwartz’s [31] approach was also in question about the people’s experienced conflict between pursuing self-transcendence or self-enhancement values.

Enneagram personality model seemed having similar approach to Schwartzian value categorization in terms of the following two points. Enneagram developed abstract value systems which is labeled as core values and drawing lines of connections and contradictions between or among each core values. Especially similar point is the emergence of the same circular structure of relations among values. Enneagram model also discusses degrees of self-mastery that Schwartz [31] tried to discuss in association with the validity of scale measurement derived by people’s conflicts in understanding what is enhancement or transcendence of the self. Enneagram personality model embedded nine particular personality-related value variables into more comprehensive and integrative frameworks. Enneagram personality model integrates nine dimensions of personality pertaining particular core belief in pursuing certain values, i.e., (1) perfection, (2) altruism, (3) achievement, (4) sensitivity, (5) intellect, (6) security, (7) hedonism, (8) power, and (9) conformity (Figure 1) [21].

Figure 1.

(A) Enneagram. (B) Core values and characteristics of the nine personality types (Lapid-Bogda) [21].

Core value is not a new exclusive term introduced in Enneagram. Core value in behavioral psychology research, was defined as “the most inherit value that people are born with [29].” Core values were also elaborated as major motivational constructs. Although consumer behavior researchers have not paid much attention to genetic effect on consumer decision making, there is a vast literature on such effects in the field of behavioral genetics. For example, Fowler et al. [9] verified the genetic effects on behavior, such as divorce, drug attention, voting, altruism, roller coasters and jazz. Verplanken and Holland [43] also pointed out that only a small subset of values have the capacity of actually driving behavior although most values are widely shared. They suggested that the common characteristics of 76 concepts was that each could be viewed as coordinators of behavior. However, conceptualizing the abstract, transsituational implicit nature of the fundamental coordinators of behavior was reported difficult.

Core values in Enneagram are not yet manipulated as universally abstracted but quite related to an individual’s valuation regarding the self. Since values are core when people make up part of one’s self-definition and contribute to one’s sense of identity, the researchers adopted to use the term core value, in the sense of the value to the self, over importance because the latter term is much broader. In other words, a value might be perceived as important not only because it is part of a person’s self-concept but also because of the inherent self-presentation motives as a rationalization strategy [21].

2. Self-Construal Level

Self-construal is recently conceptualized as “people’s thoughts, feelings, and actions regarding the self as distinct from or in association with others [16].” Traditionally, the levels of self-construal has been composed of either independent or interdependent [11, 12], which refers to an individual’s sense of self in relation to others. However, Decicco and Stroink [6] provoked the third model of self-construal level bound by personal attributes not defined only by social context, because the self-references extend beyond the individual and close others. In the field of behavioral psychology, the concept of self-construal was addressed by studying the self as personal characterizes, Freudian expression of the unconscious, or the self-expansive view, the transcendent self [10]. Correspondingly, Trope et al. [41] raised an issue concerning the application of self-construal theory.

Construal level theory (CLT) has proposed that people’ s thoughts, feelings and actions change as a function of psychological distance to certain values that they inherently construe [40, 41], which means people have general level of attention, activation, or arousal, which fluctuates across individuals. That is to say, high/low levels of psychological distance, that people think, feel or deed about something, are related to their inherently relative value affirmations. For example, specific information about certain things such as fashion products, certain events such as shopping for clothing, or somebody whom they encounter while shopping clothes, that are remote in likelihood of their construed values, tends to be less available or less reliable.

Construal level targeting humans, products, or events were understood and examined respectively. For example, Eyal et al. [8], who applied CLT for consumer behavior pointed out that certain events, such as making purchase decisions for fashion items, could be experienced from the perspective of individual personal values, and thus close, or distant to themselves. Wang et al. [44] recently investigated the relationship between brand connection and self-construal. They posited that consumers purchased brands to build their self-concepts in terms of their perceived values, and found that “independent” individuals had stronger self-differentiation goals in their brand purchases. Even though the individual may not be aware of the force of this psychological process, the psychological distance, consumers who construe themselves as “genuine” are more concerned with self-presentation to oneself rather than self-deception to others [44].

Recently, Han et al. [14] examined how emotions shape decisions through self-construal level. Han et al. tested two types of feeling, guilt and shame, and operationally defined the measurement of high/low construal level. In specific cognitive appraisals, behavior-specific appraisals (e.g., “I did a bad thing.”) were scored low in self-construal; whereas, more abstract and broad self-appraisal (e.g., “I’m a bad person.”) were scored high in self-construal. That is, the terms “high-level” and “low-level” construal reflected relative differences, rather than distinct points along a continuum [14]. On the other hand, action or decision-making related research have different approach. Fujita et al. [11] examined how construal levels might influence self-affirmation. They proposed that lower levels of construal highlight smaller goals (e.g., playing a video game and having fun now), whereas higher levels of construal highlight bigger goals (e.g., doing better academically by studying). Their conceptualization argued that construal levels enhance or undermine self-control in decision making by highlighting different goals [11].

Construal level targeting the self is related to the psychological distance of the self-incorporating particular values. That is to say, individuals vary in the propensity to act in value-consistent ways as their construal levels of certain values differ. The CLT explains the increasing psychological distance to the construal level is similar to zooming out and seeing “the forest for the trees,” whereas decreasing psychological distance is similar to focusing in on a narrower view [34]. The point is that the distinction between higher and lower level construal is inherently relative or proximity depends on one’s reference point. For example, “power” could be more abstract than “knowledge” for some people as they pursue the value of “power” as the “forest” in their vision of their lives in case they accumulate “knowledge” only for the sake of achieving the “power.” On the other hand, the value, “power” could be even more concrete than other values such as “altruism” in case they embody their personal goals or motivations as helping others and vice versa.

Enneagram model in this connection with self-construal explains that the high/low levels of the self-mastery are based on the high/low levels of psychological distance of them to view themselves, which is conceptualized as self-construal in CLT. That is, understanding themselves as one person having individual differences from others, is the first step to develop their selves, and this concept is called “self-mastery” level in Enneagram [21]. Self-mastery is conceived as a personality characteristic that serves as a psychological resource that individuals use to help them withstand stressors in their environment. High/low levels of self-mastery are correspondingly connected with the high/low levels of psychological distance to view themselves in association with the high/low self-construal levels of abstraction and concreteness. For example, Enneagram type fivers are known for perceiving the initial core value of “intellect [21].” According to Type 5s’ degrees of construing themselves, their propensities were presented differently. Type Fivers, who show extremely low in self-mastery level, are nicknamed as “the fearful strategist,” and they are characterized as having extremely limited access to their own feelings, overactive minds seem out of control even to them. On the other hand, Type 5s having high degrees in self-mastery can respect others by viewing themselves in abstract case, just as a tree in a forest, as an individual in Enneagram of personality. Type 5s having high self-mastery level are labeled as “the integrated wizard” as characterized in Enneagram as having an enthusiasm not only for ideas but also for feelings and experiences, as wisdom comes from full integration of the head, heart, and body [21].

Typological Approach in Fashion Consumers’ Decision-Making Styles

A consumer decision-making style is defined as “a patterned, mental, cognitive orientation towards shopping and purchasing, which constantly dominates consumers’ choices ever-present, predictable, central driving forces in decision-making [37, 38].” Sproles and Kendall [38] developed a scale, Consumer Style Inventory (CSI) that consists of eight mental characteristics of consumer decision-making styles namely; perfectionistic and high-quality conscious, brand conscious and price equals quality, novelty and fashion-conscious, recreational and hedonistic, price conscious and value for money, impulsive and careless, confused by over-choice, and habitual and brand-loyal. An example of the following-up study results were presented by Wesley et al. [45] as follows: impulsive consumers tended to select and purchase products in a short time, without paying much attention to product information, and consumers who are high on perfectionism are expected to shop more carefully, and are often not satisfied with limited amounts of product information and prefer to search extensively. Despite the continuous replication of Sproles and Kendall’s [38] typological approach, CSI was not universally generalized, and supplement factors for CSI, such as time saving and energy conserving, have been additionally suggested. That is to say, CSI could not represent the in-born nature of consumer propensities and it does not demonstrate the “ever-present, predictable and central driving force in decision-making” as they had originally proposed.

Typological approach in terms of traits, based on Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), discussed fashion consumers’ purchase decision-making styles generally found as that thinking types of consumers pursued “symbolism of socioeconomic status,” more than feeling types, and judging types of consumers evaluated “conformity” more positively than perceiving types [25]. These findings could be further explained in the mediating process theory, which states that decision-making style capture the rich complexity showing contrariness of human behavior influenced by the effects of self-defense mechanism, such as framing, anchoring, vividness, and overconfidence [2]. These variables explaining self-defense mechanism illustrated the mental processes and contents of decision-making style, which are defensively emphasized or removed from realistic part of pursuing core values and higher levels of self-construal.

1. Purchase Decision Making Step 1. Need Recognition Styles

A need of recognition was defined as an “individual’ s tendency to engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive endeavors and a predictive manner in which people deal with tasks and information [4].” Elaboration Likelihood Model demonstrated that consumers actively think and internally process for their purchase decision-making by elaborating certain propensities in their minds. When a person is actively thinking and internally processing the content of a subject, elaboration is high and will most likely follow the central persuasive route. On the other hand, when a person is not interested in a subject and elaboration is low, which will result in information processed through the peripheral route. This model proposes that when people are motivated to process information and are cognitively able to engage in the subject, they make decisions through the central route.

Previously fashion consumers’ propensities in need for recognition was categorized in three modes in the context of engagement in fashion. Phillips and McQuarrie [28] pointed out that fashion consumers have been experienced to trigger resistance through their identity negotiation with their selves through their processing styles. Fashion consumers who were engage to “act” scrutinized the product and brand searching for the product details, whereas consumers who were engaged to “identity” utilized their mental simulation to sympathize with the personality characteristics of the model portrayed in the fashion image. Fashion consumers who were engaged to “feel” approached fashion images primarily to regulate mood or to obtain a desired emotional response, and this processing style was named as affective processing [28].

2. Purchase Decision Making Step 2. Information Search Styles

The process of information seeking was verified based on the end-user’s natural process of information use. Traditional belief is that consumers initiate their own anchoring value and adjust from this anchor on the basis of further information [43]. Values were thus found to give meaning to, energize, and regulate value-congruent behavior, but only if values were cognitively activated and central to the self. Kuhlthau [20] developed a framework of the end user’s information search processing styles in the cognitive and affective aspects. Kuhlthau [20] found that individuals who need to resolve confusion required basic invitational information to satisfy their affective mood, whereas individuals who felt doubt on the given information became more conscious about the origin of the source and required experiential evidence to satisfy their affective mood. On the other hand, there were also two groups of people who showed propensities of cognitive behavior. People who tended to access more detailed information required formal indicative information, whereas people who tended to reconstruct the given information were to find the coherent state with their own knowledge [43].

3. Purchase Decision Making Step 3. Alternatives Evaluation Styles

Previous research relevant to consumer propensities in their decision making process of the evaluation of alternatives could be found under the rubrics of judgmental processes to make value-congruent choice [35]. The concept of the value congruent choice stated that consumers tend to make the most attractive choice for their value affirmation. A choice alternative is thus characterized by the perceived likelihood of an outcome, which has a certain degree of attractiveness. Values related to the self, such as integrity, morality, self-fulfillment, sense of belonging, influence decision-making by determining the attractiveness of outcomes that are relevant to those values [43]. In consumers’ natural context, however, in Schwartsian perspective, there could be inconsistency about the value perception of alternatives on the different attributes, and consumers could choose another options about the weights of the attributes and about their preferences for different combinations of attribute values, such as best options over variety, risk-taking over security, utilitarian over hedonic, and vice versa [16].

4. Purchase Decision Making Step 4. Styles on Purchase

Activation of purchase was described and applied to the dynamics of consumer behavior with a special emphasis of impulse buying [35]. Impulsive and reflective process of decision making was dependent on differences in individual personality of impulsivity. According to James et al.’s study [39], delayed activation of purchase was dependent on the cognitive processing for gathering information, whereas quick, automatic, associative, and emotionally driven purchase decision was made in uncertain, irrational, or compulsive conditions.

Ma and Koh [22] verified fashion consumers’ preferences on sales person’s service styles according to their personality types. For example, fashion consumers who perceived strong impact on the relationship with other people preferred the sales person having an attitude not forcing customers to purchase anything but presenting trustful professional advice.

5. Purchase Decision Making Step 5. Post-Purchase Evaluation Styles

Attraction and compromise effects tend to be stronger among subjects who expect to justify their decisions to others [35]. Blodgett et al. [3] verified the post-purchase evaluation behavior underlying values of individuals, including redress-seeking behavior to pursue specific remedies directly from the seller. In contrast to a problem-focused complaint, an emotion focused-complaint was directed inward. Emotional consumers attempted to regulate their mental response to the problem to feel better. Instead of doing something, they were found to remain silent to maintain hope and optimism. Seeking social support was meant to be explaining their dissatisfaction to another person to obtain emotional support [3]. Constructs discussed in the literature reviews were listed with references as shown in Table 1.

Measurements of Constructs

Methods

1. Measurements of Constructs

Vision Enneagram Personality Type Indicator was utilized as a valid measurement to group the participants of this study and compare their propensities in purchase decision-making. The inventory was made up of 90 items, describing the characteristics of extreme case of each types of personality addressed in Enneagram. The core values that nine types of personality were born with and held for their lives were measured through 10 questions respectively. For example, the question item “I tend to do what the majority of other people do.” was included to ask a typical propensity of the Type 9 activating the “conformity” value. Similarly, question example asking the propensity of Type 8 “I am afraid if others might think I am a weak person.” was also included. Participants rated their tendency in doing so by marking their points in the 5-point Likert scale (from 1: strongly disagree to 5: strongly agree). Participants’ scores assigned for each type of questions were summed up to allocate them in each of the Enneagram type.

The construct,“self-construal level,”reporting inconsistency in the measurement use, was operationally defined by this study following Sherman’s [34] psychological conceptualization about the self as understanding themselves distant from others. High/low levels of the self-construal was measured as abstract/concrete levels understanding themselves in association with others. “Others” here, could be other people they consider when making decisions, friends they shop with and share comments with, or salesperson they encounter during the process of purchase decision making. In aspects of respecting the difference of the self from the others, Sherman’s psychological distance between the self and the others was activated not only as a part of a specific consideration of the Enneagram typology, but it was also considered as a major independent variable influencing fashion consumers’ purchase decision making. Total scores for all nine types of Enneagram propensities divided by the scores for a specific Enneagram core value were calculated so as to distribute the population of the sample into the category of the high/low levels in attempt to making comparisons between groups.

Measurement of fashion consumer’s decision-making styles were incorporated from previous studies where decision making and consumer propensities were demonstrated in-depth. Consumer propensities corresponding to purchase decision-making styles were described on 100-item measurement scale, which was developed to examine the fashion consumers’ in-born natures unconsciously seeking the most comfortable state during the process of their purchase decision-making journey, specifically in the five decision making process of the purchase. To ensure content validity, measurement scales for bulk of constructs in the model were selected from the literature and revised to ask suitable questions representing fashion consumers’ decision-making styles. For example, for the step 1, need recognition, 12 questions were borrowed from Phillips and McQuarrie’s [28] categorization of elaboration, simulation, affective processing styles. For example, “I want to go shopping when I see celebrities on TV.” were asked to measure if they use simulation processing by identifying themselves as somebody they admire. To measure the fashion consumers’ information searching styles, Kuhlthau’s [20] findings regarding the correlation between personality and the cognitive, affective, indicative, invitational information processing styles were adopted, and the measurement included 12 items such as, “I want to be assured by reading purchase reviews, because making purchase decision is too difficult for me.” Fashion consumers’ alternative evaluation styles were measured through their judgmental process of value-congruent choice. For instance, choosing the best option over variety was asked with the questions, such as “I check before purchase if the clothing is my best choice.” and the reverse question asking for the valuation of variety, such as “I love to make additional purchase in case they offer me free gifts.,” which were borrowed from Hong and Chang’s [16]. On-purchase decision-making style, such as delayed action or prompt action of purchase, priorities in shopping places in terms of physical and emotional atmospheres, and impulsiveness or planning-ahead propensities in buying, were asked through 28 questions adopted from the findings of James et al. [39] and Verplanken and Holland [43]. Twelve questions were allocated to ask fashion consumers’ interaction styles with sales people, such as “I clearly express my anger when the sales person shows me bad attitude.” as well as their tendency of companion shopping, “I rely on professional sales people, and I carefully listen to their advice.” Questions asking fashion consumers’ post-purchase evaluation styles included “I tend to evaluate myself whether I made rational purchase or not,” “ I love to say to my friends how I think or feel about my newly purchase clothing,” etc.

2. Participants and Survey Distribution

The questionnaire was pretested looking for ambiguity of questions and anything misleading in the instrument, and modified by the authors of this study who acquired the Enneagram coaching specialist certificate from International Coaching Federation (ICF). For the second step, 107 fashion major students, who participated in 2-hour Enneagram seminar, were asked to resentence the 100-question items to make them better describe the behavior of Enneagram personality types to be reflected in making purchase decisions for fashion items. Fashion major students having involvement in their clothing purchase decision making as well as appreciating Enneagram core values and self-construal, gave insights for the scale purification. For example, one student who reported himself as Type 6 modified the sentence developed to ask the propensity of Type 6, “I hate the salesperson who praise me.” was modified as “I hate the salesperson praising me to sell something to me.” All scales were presented in 7-point Likert style, varying from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). As Pace and Brannick [26] suggested, indicators of consumer sentiment, such as personality indicator emphasizing psychometric properties of the scale, was dependent on the choice of scale format, and the 7-point Likert scale produced higher mean score difference relative to the other scale formats. The final version of the questionnaire was randomly distributed, in association with the Embrain Research Panels, toward 350 additional fashion consumers evenly ranged by their age, sex, incomes, occupations, etc.

Results

1. Scale Development

Utilizing the SPSS ver. 21.0 (IBM Co., Armonk, NY, USA), factor analysis, one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the post hoc analysis was implemented to verify the relationship of Enneagram personality types incorporated form the core values as well as the self-construal level corresponding to fashion consumer’s purchase decision-making styles. The scale development process was carried out over the series of item generation, scale purification, and scale validation. To begin with, factor analysis was conducted to find the factors of fashion consumers’ propensities influencing each steps of purchase decision making process. Thirty-seven questions out of 100 items, which decreased the reliability of the scale, were to be deleted. A series of principal-axis factor analyses with Varimax rotation and subsequent item analyses were conducted to develop conceptually distinct scales with acceptable internal consistency and a stable factor structure (α ranging from .825 to .622) as presented in Table 2.

Factor Analysis of Fashion Consumers’ Purchase Decision-Making Styles

In the process of the scale development, 21 styles were identified as reliable to test for fashion consumers’ propensities influencing each steps of purchase decision making process; 4 styles for need cognition, i.e., simulation processing styles (α =.784, p<.001), affective processing style (α =.722, p<.001, etc.), 3 styles for information searching, i.e., cognitive processing style (α =.786, p<.001), indicative processing style (α =.762, p<.001, etc.), 4 styles for the evaluation of alternatives, i.e., security over risk taking (α =.672, p<.001), variety over best option (α =.631, p<.001, etc.), 5 styles on the moment of purchase, i.e., delayed activation of purchase (α =.825, p<.001), plan ahead for purchase (α =.772, p<.001), impulse buying (α =.675, p<.001), convenient shopping (α =.622, p<.001), feasibility over desirability (α =.623, p<.001). Tests for independence among the five decision-making style scales and concurrent validity analyses were conducted.

2. Comparison of Fashion Consumers’ Need Recognition and Information Processing Styles via Enneagram Personality Typology

In terms of the cognitive processing style, Type 5 (mean=6.23) and 6 (mean=6.19) showed tendency to engage in and give effortful cognitive endeavors dealing with information compared to Type 8 (mean=1.82), who were characterized as impulsive buyers. Type 5 and 6 scored distinctively higher for the question item, “I want to be assured by reading purchase reviews because making purchase decision is too difficult for me.” Searching for information was to prevent from the fraud, because they were doubtful to trust that the information given by the media were always true. On the other hand, for the other comparison group, Type 4 showed relatively higher cognitive processing style (mean=4.26), and it seemed to be derived from different reasons, their full enjoyment reading fashion news. As Phillips and McQuarrie [28] pointed out, Type 4 who valued special, unique, differentiated taste, actively processed the content of fashion and their elaboration was high and most likely they followed the central persuasive route provided by the media. Type 4 who were engaged in cognitive processing style in making fashion purchase decision also showed significantly higher degrees of affective processing tendency (mean=5.95), which was significantly higher compared to the distinctive cognitive information processing group, Type 5 (mean=1.92). Distinct comparison in the stimulation processing style between Type 3 (mean=5.57) and Type 6 (mean=1.61) was shown. As the Elaboration Likelihood Model demonstrated that identifying consumers’ purchase needs were elaborated by certain image in their minds [27], Type 3 whose core value was demonstrated as “achievement” identifying themselves with the image of successful person, showed higher degree of stimulation processing. They utilized mental simulation to sympathize with the personality characteristic of the model portrayed in the fashion image on the media, which was significantly stronger propensity compared to Type 6, who valued security as a priority for clothing purchase (Table 3).

Fashion Consumers’ Enneagram Personality Type Comparison of Need Recognition and Information Processing Styles

3. Comparison of Fashion Consumers’ Alternative Evaluation Styles via Enneagram Personality Typology

Simonson’s [35] rubrics of judgmental processes to make value-congruent choice discussed that consumers tend to make the most attractive choice for their perceived likelihood of an outcome. In terms of the value pursuit between security and risk-taking, Type 6 sought for the security from the clothing purchase being royal to certain brands and styles (mean=6.23), whereas Type 7 showed significantly lower security seeking tendency (mean=1.79) as exploring the variety of choices by taking expected risks from the uncertain and insecure choices. Significant difference was also found from Type 6 (mean=6.23) and Type 8 (mean=1.82) who showed impulsiveness in decision making as valuing less for the security over risk-taking. Type 6 elaborated on the expected security of purchased item, such as quality control, easy return policy, care for misused products, etc. A question item that Type 6 concerned the most of regarding the “security value” was that “I don’t purchase any brand that I have never heard of.” Ironically, this item was not included in the factor extraction for “brand-royal,” but it was included in the “security seeking” factor (α =.787, p≤.001). Their choice of a certain brand were not due to their aesthetic taste or persuasion activated from brands. In the same manner, Type 3 and 4’s evaluations for the “security” were not considered as their priority in decision making. Variety over best option factor was understood through the lens of “choice of reasons” theory [35], which demonstrated the decision making studies are forced to shift the focus from the “choice of options” to the “choice of reasons” in the field of consumer research. Enneagram Type 4 valued “variety” significantly higher than the best one single item (mean=6.08), which was a significant style distinctive from Type 1 (mean=1.59), who were characterized as brand loyal, as well as from Type 9 (mean=2.73), who pursued conformity value on clothing purchase. As Oh [25] demonstrated the consumers’ personality in association with their consumption value of uniqueness, Type 4, who preferred variety options showed ever-present central driving force in decision making seeking for uniqueness, but they responded less to the conflicting options such as perfection or conformity (Table 4).

Fashion Consumers’ Enneagram Personality Type Comparison of Alternative Evaluation Styles

4. Comparison of Fashion Consumers’ on Purchase DecisionMaking Styles via Enneagram Personality Typology

The dynamic correlation between “delayed/prompt activation of purchase” and “impulse buying” was confirmed in this study echoing Simonson’s theory [35] stating that reflective process of decision making was dependent on the individual’s impulsivity. For example, Enneagram Type 8 showed the highest degrees of impulsivity (mean=6.74) compared to the rest of other types. Type 6 was found as having the least tendency on impulsivity (mean=1.76), and reported as the lowest on delayed activation of purchase. Especially, delayed activation of purchase was dependent on the cognitive processing for gathering information, as Type 6 reported their tendency of “delayed activation of purchase” significantly high (mean=6.95) as well as on the scales for “cognitive information processing (mean=6.19).”

Enneagram Type 9 showed significant shopping style seeking for convenience (mean=6.38) compared to Type 4 (mean=2.95), who valued uniqueness of the store environment as well as variety of choice. Type 9 valued convenient shopping environment, such as quiet shopping place, accessibility, nearness to home, internet shopping, etc. (α =.622, p<.001) as well as economically feasible shopping over emotionally desirable shopping, showing easy-going propensity, reassuring economic accessibility over any other values suggested, such as desirability in the future, emotional expectation or satisfaction, as their core value were found to be as “peace and harmony” avoiding unnecessary conflicts. Echoing Ma and Koh’s [22] study results, Type 9 who perceived strong impact on peaceful relationship with other people preferred the sales person having an attitude not forcing them to purchase anything but presenting burden-less suggestions. On the contrary, the core value of Type 2, “altruism,” was activated as helping their shopping companions to purchase better products and making favorable impression as a nice person to shop with. In terms of the interaction with sales person, Type 2 pursued the image of a good consumer responding to the moto their favorite brands purchasing good products and services. Type 2 showed the highest on companion shopping (mean=6.19), whereas Type 7 was the lowest (mean=2.57) as they were reported to prefer shopping alone. The companion shopping style of Type 2 was majorly seeking for the favorable friendly relationship with others. On the other hand, Type 9 also showed high preference on companion shopping (mean=5.43) as pertaining strong group conformity value (Table 5).

Fashion Consumers’ Enneagram Personality Type Comparison of on Purchase Decision-Making Styles

Post-purchase compromising tendency of Type 7 and Type 8, being attracted by their own decision made and trying to rationalize their decision seeking for the optimism was significantly stronger than those of the others, as Simonson [35] pointed out that the self-attraction and compromising effect on decision-making comes along. Public posting behavior was followed by their compromising stage in the case of the Type 8 (mean=5.88), but Type 7 (mean=2.96) stayed silent to maintain self-oriented optimism instead of performing actions or seeking supports from others by posting the post-purchase reviews. As Blodgett et al. [3], problem-focused complaint such as redress-seeking behavior to pursue specific remedies directly from the seller was the typical intentions of Type 8. In contrast, the compromising tendency of Type 7 was directed inward.

5. Fashion Consumers Decision-Making Styles According to Self-Construal Distance Level

This study also found that the self-construal distance level significantly influenced fashion consumers’ purchase decision-making styles (F=37.257, p≤.001). Fashion consumer comparison in between conflicting core values, (e.g., altruism vs. achievement), brought fashion consumers’ dilemma in making purchase decisions whether to go ahead purchasing more or to save it for the environment. As the self-construal distance increased, participants solved the conflict in favor of the value that they personally found to be counter-central. A Type 3 student, who were grouped as holding highly abstract self-construal, as positively appreciating the core values held by Type 2 as well as Type 4, narrated after the 2-hour Enneagram seminar as,

“It was helpful I could think of the role of my in-born personality living in this society, especially influencing others by making purchase decisions for fashion. As a civil participant, I am responsible to make a right choice when making purchase decision. Even though I admit the fact that I have some tendency to purchase expensive clothes and show off sometimes in front of the other sex, that is just for a moment and ultimately it’s not for the sake of competition. My personal goal is helping others in the future, and my purchase decision made for this environmentally friendly bag was a little start for me to contribute somehow to this society.”

Self-construal score of this student was calculated as 9.52, much higher than the average (mean=7.55, SD=1.64, N=107), and he was interested in the direction of the arrows suggested by the Enneagram suggesting the direction for “self-mastery.” He was not stuck to his core value of “achievement” but expanded himself along with his subcore value “altruism” toward additional values, “sincerity” or “responsibility.”

Conclusion

This study examined the validity of an integrated typology explaining fashion consumers’ purchase decision-making styles that corresponded to the core values and the self-construal levels discussed in Enneagram personality types. The correlation between Enneagram core values embodied by fashion consumers during the stages of purchase decision-making in extensive levels of self-construal were verified in the context of their fashion decision making. The purchase decision-making styles for fashion products were shown differently by the participants’ types of Enneagram personality. Propensities of Type 1 were found to be characterized as “delayed activation of purchase” on the process of purchase, since their cognitive information processing style was understood as perfection-oriented. Type 2 was primarily characterized as doing “companion shopping” having altruistic mind toward their intimate sales person as well as their royal brands. Type 3 showed highest degree of “simulation processing,” utilizing mental simulation to sympathize with the personality characteristic of their choice of brands. Type 4 preferred “variety options” in decision making seeking for uniqueness. Type 5 gave effortful “cognitive information search” to prevent from the fraud, because they were doubtful about the information given by the fashion media. The security seeking tendency of Type 6 was revealed in their “obsessive concerning” about the quality control, easy return policy, and care for misused products, etc. Type 7 showed compromising style after taking risks on purchase, attracted by their quick and instant decision made, and the style of Type 8 was characterized with “planned impulse buying,” where they tended to actualize their purchase rationalization on public. Type 9 sought convenient shopping environment blocking all the possibility to be exposed to unexpected conflicts, and their easy-going propensity was revealed by their consideration on the “feasibility of purchase.”

The findings of this study opposed to the “choice for option” theory driven by Sproles and Sproles’s [37] and Sproles and Kendall’s [38] consumer style inventory, which characterized eight different types of mental process picking the best option in decision making. Specifically, the third type, brand conscious consumers were stated as having strong belief in “price equals quality,” but this study found that the brand conscious consumers might not make the same choice in case they are provided with variety of options of brands. Their choice of a certain brand could be understood with the claim of “choice for different reasons [35],” generally speaking, Enneagram personality driving different reasoning for decisions. For example, Enneagram Type 3 and 4 were reported as brand-royal, and they showed significant consideration on the name of brands, but their core values were found to be distant from “security” or “price-to-quality ratio” as Enneagram Type 6 chose to value in this study. Shifting the lens from the “options” to “values” brought extensive explanation for the results of this study.

Limitations and Implications

Major limitations on the methodological level developing a scale and test the validity could be discussed in terms of the collection of constructs. Depending upon the extensive literature reviews from various fields of research, the researchers assorted as many of measurement constructs that were found to verify the different propensities on decision-making styles, but the measurements were not exclusively tested for fashion studies. The scale could possibly be overlapped and it could have limitations on generalization of the scale to discuss other possible facets of shopping style that could be especially found from those of fashion consumers. Considering this limitation, fashion major students were involved to verify and re-sentence their purchase decision-making styles, and their self-reported phrases were added to the scale items. The results were also limited to be generalized, since the sample of 423 participants were not evenly distributed to the nine personality types (e.g., 81 samples for Type 6 vs. only 21 samples for Type 9). Selected participants were the undergraduate students from one single university, who could have higher standards on certain group values as well as the voluntary research panels were known to be trained to be responsible and sincere to contribute their opinion clearly through their answers.

Nevertheless, this study presented academic implications by adopting an alternative perspective premising that fashion consumers are individuals born to embody certain personality type and try to behave accordingly to accomplish their purchase decisions. In attempt to restore the theoretical confidence in the academic use of individual difference model of personality, this study adopted the Enneagram personality model and insisted Enneagram core values and self-construal levels were to be critical motivators of consumer behaviors. In the context of fashion consumers’ purchase decision making, the researchers examined a wide range of previously constructed variables which achieved attention in the field of psychology. Since prior research on behavioral personality has typically employed a piece-meal approach, demonstrating each traits separately, this study simultaneously explored common mechanisms and links among personality, values and consumer behavior. This study could suggest a theoretical measurement to promote academic consensus discussing how decision-making styles should be conceptualized and tested in accordance with every steps that consumers might face during their decision-making journey. The findings could also suggest empirical implications for the fashion industry considering typological approach to reach their customers by inspecting their purchase decision making behavior carefully and respond to their purchase decision-making preferences accordingly.

Notes

The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2012S1A5A2A01019334).

References

1. Baumgartner H.. 2002;Toward a personology of the consumer. Journal of Consumer Research 29(2):286–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/341578.
2. Bazerman M. H.. 2001;Consumer research for consumers. Journal of Consumer Research 27(4):499–504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/319624.
3. Blodgett J., Hill D., Bakir A.. 2006;Cross-cultural complaining behavior? An alternative explanation. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior 19:103–117.
4. Cacioppo J. T., Petty R. E., Kao C. F.. 1984;The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment 48(3):306–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13.
5. Daniels D. N., Price V. A.. 2009. The essential enneagram: The definitive personality test and self-discovery guide. San Francisco, CA: HarperOne.
6. DeCicco T. L., Stroink M. L.. 2007;A third model of self-construal: The metapersonal self. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies 26:82–104.
7. Dhar R., Wertenbroch K.. 2012;Self-signaling and the costs and benefits of temptation in consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research 49(1):15–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0490.
8. Eyal T., Liberman N., Trope Y.. 2008;Judging near and distant virtue and vice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44(4):1204–1209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.03.012.
9. Fowler J. H., Baker L. A., Dawes C. T.. 2008;Genetic variation in political participation. American Political Science Review 102(02):233–248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0003055408080209.
10. Friedman H. L.. 1983;The self-expansiveness level form: A conceptualization and measurement of a transpersonal construct. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology 15(1):37–50.
11. Fujita K., Trope Y., Liberman N., Levin-Sagi M.. 2006;Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90(3):351–367. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.946436.
12. Gollwitzer P. M., Wicklund R. A.. 1985;Self-symbolizing and the neglect of others’ perspectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48(3):702–715. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.48.3.702.
13. Grace D.. 2005;Consumer disposition toward satisfaction (Cds): Scale development and validation. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 13(2):20–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2005.11658541.
14. Han D., Duhachek A., Agrawal N.. 2014;Emotions shape decisions through construal level: The case of guilt and shame. Journal of Consumer Research 41(4):1047–1064. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/678300.
15. Hirschman E. C.. 1980;Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity. Journal of Consumer Research 7(3):283–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/208816.
16. Hong J., Chang H. H.. 2015;“I” follow my heart and “We” rely on reasons: The impact of self-construal on reliance on feelings versus reasons in decision making. Journal of Consumer Research 41(6):1392–1411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/680082.
17. Howard J. A., Sheth J. N.. 1969. The theory of buyer behavior New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
18. John O. P., Srivastava S.. 1999. The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In : Pervin L. A., John O. P., eds. Handbook of personality: Theory and research p. 102–138. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
19. Kohn M. L.. 1959;Social class and parental values. American Journal of Sociology 64(4):337–351.
20. Kuhlthau C. C.. 1991;Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user’s perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 42(5):361–371.
21. Lapid-Bogda G.. 2009. Bringing out the best in everyone you coach: Use the Enneagram system for exceptional results. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
22. Ma Y., Koh A.. 2001;A study on evaluation of salesperson’s service and purchase behavior as related to customer’s personality type. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles 25(6):1155–1166.
23. Mellers B., Schwartz A., Ritov I.. 1999;Emotion-based choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology 128(30):332–345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.332.
24. Mischel W.. 1968. Personality and assessment New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
25. Oh H. J.. 2001;The differences of apparel evaluation on consumer’s personality types. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles 25(2):249–258.
26. Pace V. L., Brannick M. T.. 2010;How similar are personality scales of the “same” construct? A meta-analytic investigation. Personality and Individual Differences 49(7):669–676. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.06.014.
27. Petty R. E., Cacioppo J. T., Goldman R.. 1981;Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41(5):847–855. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.847.
28. Phillips B. J., McQuarrie E. F.. 2010;Narrative and persuasion in fashion advertising. Journal of Consumer Research 37(3):368–392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/653087.
29. Rohan M. J.. 2000;A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and Social Psychology Review 4(3):255–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0403_4.
30. Saucier G., Srivastava S.. 2015. What makes a good structural model of personality? Evaluating the big five and alternatives. In : Mikulincer M., Shaver P. R., Cooper M. L., Larsen R. J., ; American Psychological Association, eds. APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology: Vol. 4. Personality processes and individual differences p. 283–305. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14343-013.
31. Schwartz S. H.. 1992;Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25:1–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60281-6.
32. Schwartz S. H., Boehnke K.. 2004;Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality 38(3):230–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0092-6566(03)00069-2.
33. Schwartz S. H., Cieciuch J., Vecchione M., Davidov E., Fischer R., Beierlein C., et al. 2012;Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 103(4):663–688. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029393.
34. Sherman D. K.. 2013;Self-affirmation: Understanding the effects. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7(11):834–845. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12072.
35. Simonson I.. 1989;Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research 16(2):158–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209205.
36. Solomon M. R.. 2014. Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
37. Sproles E. K., Sproles G. B.. 1990;Consumer decision-making styles as a function of individual learning styles. Journal of Consumer Affairs 24(1):134–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.1990.tb00262.x.
38. Sproles G. B., Kendall E. L.. 1986;A methodology for profiling consumers’ decision-making styles. The Journal of Consumer Affairs 20(2):267–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.1986.tb00382.x.
39. St. James Y., Handelman J. M., Taylor S. F.. 2011;Magical thinking and consumer coping. Journal of Consumer Research 38(4):632–649. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/660163.
40. Trope Y., Liberman N.. 2010;Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review 117(2):440–463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018963.
41. Trope Y., Liberman N., Wakslak C.. 2007;Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology 17(2):83–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1057-7408(07)70013-x.
42. Venkatraman M. P., Price L. L.. 1990;Differentiating between cognitive and sensory innovativeness: Concepts, measurement, and implications. Journal of Business Research 20(4):293–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(90)90008-2.
43. Verplanken B., Holland R. W.. 2002;Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82(3):434–447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.3.434.
44. Wang Y., Ma S. S., Li D.. 2015;Customer participation in virtual brand communities: The self-construal perspective. Information & Management 52(5):577–587. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2015.04.003.
45. Wesley S., LeHew M., Woodside A. G.. 2006;Consumer decision-making styles and mall shopping behavior: Building theory using exploratory data analysis and the comparative method. Journal of Business Research 59(5):535–548. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.005.

Article information Continued

Figure 1.

(A) Enneagram. (B) Core values and characteristics of the nine personality types (Lapid-Bogda) [21].

Table 1.

Measurements of Constructs

Theorized construct Measurement Reference
Core value: Vision Enneagram type indicator (90-item 5 point scale) Vision Enneagram Institute
 Nine particular value variables in Enneagram personality model ∙ Scale for the Enneagram core values: perfection, altruism, achievement, uniqueness, intellect, security, hedonism, strength, and conformity Lapid-Bogda (2009) [21]
Verplanken and Holland (2002) [43]
Self-construal level: Vision Enneagram type indicator (90-item 5 point scale) Vision Enneagram Institute
- High/low levels of psychological distance to view the self ∙ Total scores of all 9 types of Enneagram; points for the types for self-enhancement; points for the wings next to the core divided by points for the Enneagram core value Lapid-Bogda (2009) [21]
- Self-mastery level in Enneagram Sherman (2013) [34]
Hong and Chang (2015) [16]
Purchase decision-making style Decision-making styles revised from the following literature (100-item 7 point scale)
 1. Need recognition style ∙ Engagement to: act, identify & feel for elaboration, simulation, & affective processing Cacioppo et al. (1984) [4]
Petty et al. (1981) [27]
Venkatraman and Price (1990) [42]
Phillips and McQuarrie (2010) [28]
 2. Information search style Desire for exploration: Howard and Sheth (1969) [17]
∙ Confusion, doubt, accessing & re-construing Kuhlthau (1991) [20]
∙ Visceral, conscious, formal & compromised needs Verplanken and Holland (2002) [43]
∙ Anomalous knowledge, experiential knowledge, well-defined answer & coherent state of knowledge
∙ Invitational, affective, indicative & cognitive processing styles
 3. Evaluation of alternative Judgmental process to make value-congruent choice: Mellers et al. (1999) [23]
∙ Best option vs. variety Dhar and Wertenbroch (2012) [7]
∙ Risk taking vs. security (ease of return) Hirschman (1980) [15]
∙ Utilitarian vs. Hedonic Hong and Chang (2015) [16]
 4. Style on purchase ∙ Economic feasibility vs. desirability Simonson (1989) [35]
∙ Impulsiveness Verplanken and Holland (2002) [43]
∙ Activation of purchase (now or later) Ma and Koh (2001) [22]
∙ Interaction with sales person/companion Wesley et al. (2006) [45]
 5. Post-purchase evaluation style ∙ Rationality (need for justification) Blodgett et al. (2006) [3]
∙ Talking to others about purchases Grace (2005) [13]

Table 2.

Factor Analysis of Fashion Consumers’ Purchase Decision-Making Styles

Purchase decision making Factor loading
Step 1. Need recognition style
 Factor 1. Simulation processing style
  I want to go shopping when I see celebrities on TV. .762
  I frequently go shopping because I am afraid I lag behind fashion. .742
  I want to purchase the attractive and sensual image on ads. .676
 Factor 2. Price information value elaboration style
  I want to purchase clothing when I see the “sale” sign. .787
  I tend to let others know about sales promotion events. .730
  I am thrilled to look around the new arrivals at fashion shops. .684
  I like reading new fashion news and reports. .638
 Factor 3. Affective processing style
  I love to spend the whole day shopping even though it is not a case of special occasion. .846
  Shopping for clothing is refreshing break for me. .514
 Factor 4. Rationality value elaborated style
  I clearly decide what kind of clothing I would purchase before going shopping. .709
  I go shopping only when I really need something to wear. .527
Step 2. Information search style
 Factor 1. Cognitive processing style
  I want to be assured by reading purchase reviews because making purchase decision is too difficult for me. .813
  I cannot trust all the information and reviews because I could be hooked by the fraud. .773
  I spend time looking for precise information because information given might not correct. .679
  I search information as much as I can because I could be defraud while shopping. .603
 Factor 2. Indicative processing style
  I like reading fashion ads and catalogs thoroughly. .770
  It is interesting and fun to collect enough information before shopping. .750
 Factor 3. Affective processing style
  I am relieved to see good reviews when I feel doubt about product choice. .748
  I doubt what the seller or company says, so I don't reflect their remarks. .623
Step 3. Alternatives evaluation style
 Factor 1. Security over risk taking
  I check if the clothing follows the instructions from the National Quality Certification Systems. .840
  I don't purchase any clothing item not labeled for care instruction manuals. .836
  I don't purchase any brand that I have never heard of. .533
 Factor 2. Best option over variety: Brand
  I prefer designer brand because it delivers good quality. .699
  I have favorite brands that I buy over and over. .691
  I am royal to a certain brand and I don't consider any other brands for an alternative. .607
 Factor 3. Best option over variety: Taste
  I check before purchase if the clothing suits me well. .756
  I check before purchase if the clothing coordinates well with my existing clothing. .749
  I check before purchase if the clothing is my best choice. .688
 Factor 4. Variety over best option
  I love to purchase many up-to-date clothing because trendiness is my major consideration. .660
  I purchase clothing even though I don't need it in case it is on great sale. .627
  I love to make additional purchase in case they offer me free gifts. .613
Step 4. Styles on purchase
 Factor 1. Delayed activation of purchase
  I spend lots of time at stores looking through the condition of clothing. .857
  I enjoy navigating this and that places. .804
  I don't care spending hours looking around at a same shop. .734
  Shopping is my hobby and enjoyable exercise. .505
  I prefer spending time at fun and enjoyable places for clothing shopping. .492
 Factor 2. Plan ahead for purchase
  I plan ahead what to shop in terms of the style and price. .724
  I always keep track on my expenses while shopping. .701
  I always plan ahead where to shop, and I don't visit any other shops. .620
 Factor 3. Impulse buying
  In case I save some money encountering pop sales, I spend that much amount for more. .701
  I purchase anything I haven't planned to have if I visit somewhere I hardly come again. .656
  I purchase numbers of clothing by colors at the same time if I like the style. .626
 Factor 4. Convenient shopping
  I choose to shop at a store near home. .732
  I prefer quiet place for convenient shopping. .716
  I tend to purchase at online shops due to the convenience reason. .611
 Factor 5. Economically feasible shopping
  I purchase clothing only at discount stores. .731
  I prefer discounted outlets offering a good deal. .685
Step 4-1. Styles on purchase interaction styles with salesperson
 Factor 1. Defensive shopping
  I am sick of listening to what salesperson says to sell something to me. .734
  I case the salesperson compel me to purchase something, I just get out of the store. .703
  I just don't listen to what salesperson says. .714
  If the brand hire new salespersons who don't fit their brand image, I don't visit the store. .665
  In case the salesperson welcomes me showing excessive kindness, I feel like I am forced to buy something in that store. .620
 Factor 2. Expression of anger
  I clearly express my anger when the salesperson shows me bad attitude. .754
  I become upset when the salesperson doesn't serve me properly. .704
  I can't stand that the salesperson advise me to purchase something that I don't like. .509
 Factor 3. Companion shopping
  I rely on professional salespeople, and I carefully listen to their advice. .810
  I tend to ask lots of questions to salesperson to make better choice. .733
  I prefer the salesperson who is knowledged and professional. .561
Step 5. Post-purchase evaluation style
 Factor 1. Private evaluation on rationality
  I tend to evaluate myself whether I made rational purchase or not. .797
  I tend to revisit the shop where I have received good service and special offers. .707
  I tend to revisit the shop where I found good quality clothing. .673
  I love to say to my friends how I think or feel about my newly purchase clothing. .559
 Factor 2. Public posting of evaluation
  I tend to post my purchase reviews, evaluation about price to quality ratio, and share my care tips with others. .866
  I publicly denounce certain brand's fraud on products to avoid additional consumer damage. .782

Table 3.

Fashion Consumers’ Enneagram Personality Type Comparison of Need Recognition and Information Processing Styles

Need recognition & information processing style Enneagram personality typea)
Enneagram type comparison (MD)b) F
Type n (core value) Type 1 perfection (a) Type 2 altruism (b) Type 3 achievement (c) Type 4 sensitivity (d) Type 5 intellect (e) Type 6 security (f) Type 7 hedonism (g) Type 8 power (h) Type 9 conformity (i)
Number 40 43 66 55 29 81 58 28 21
Cognitive processing style Mean 3.65 2.45 3.08 4.26 6.23 6.19 4.49 1.82 1.98 (e-h) 4.41*** 62.352***
(f-h) 4.37***
(d-h) 2.44***
SD 1.92 1.26 1.82 2.42 1.78 1.20 1.74 1.81 2.09
Affective processing style Mean 2.93 5.02 5.14 5.95 1.92 1.62 3.64 4.86 4.07 (d-e) 4.03*** 42.782***
SD 1.76 1.83 2.85 2.21 1.70 1.85 1.74 1.05 1.78
Simulation processing style Mean 3.23 5.14 5.57 5.25 1.94 1.61 2.97 3.81 4.19 (c-f) 3.96*** 47.383***
SD 1.76 2.09 1.88 2.16 1.69 1.33 1.89 1.62 2.38
a)

One-way analysis of variance.

b)

Scheffe post hoc analysis.

***

p<.001.

Table 4.

Fashion Consumers’ Enneagram Personality Type Comparison of Alternative Evaluation Styles

Alternative evaluation style Enneagram personality typea)
Enneagram type comparison (MD)b) F
Type n (core value) Type 1 perfection (a) Type 2 altruism (b) Type 3 achievement (c) Type 4 sensitivity (d) Type 5 intellect (e) Type 6 security (f) Type 7 hedonism (g) Type 8 power (h) Type 9 conformity (i)
Number 40 43 66 55 29 81 58 28 21
Security over risk taking Mean 3.65 2.45 3.08 4.26 5.98 6.23 1.79 1.82 3.98 (f-g) 4.44*** 64.500***
(f-h) 4.41***
SD 1.67 1.59 2.20 2.31 1.35 1.70 1.74 2.21 1.80
Variety over best option Mean 1.59 3.14 3.57 6.08 2.94 2.98 5.97 3.81 2.73 (d-a) 4.49 55.589***
(d-i) 3.35***
SD 1.70 2.17 2.64 2.21 1.78 1.62 1.39 2.26 2.06
a)

One-way analysis of variance.

b)

Scheffe post hoc analysis.

***

p<.001.

Table 5.

Fashion Consumers’ Enneagram Personality Type Comparison of on Purchase Decision-Making Styles

Alternative evaluation style Enneagram personality typea)
Enneagram type comparison (MD)b) F
Type n (core value) Type 1 perfection (a) Type 2 altruism (b) Type 3 achievement (c) Type 4 sensitivity (d) Type 5 intellect (e) Type 6 security (f) Type 7 hedonism (g) Type 8 power (h) Type 9 conformity (i)
Number 40 43 66 55 29 81 58 28 21
Impulse purchasing Mean 2.75 5.92 4.42 5.02 1.94 1.76 4.32 6.74 5.47 (h-e) 4.98*** 78.264***
SD 1.49 2.54 2.03 1.76 1.28 .887 1.03 2.04 1.65
Convenient shopping Mean 4.65 3.05 3.28 2.95 5.48 5.27 5.79 5.82 6.38 (i-d) 3.43*** 33.249***
SD 1.67 1.59 2.20 2.31 1.35 1.70 1.74 2.21 1.80
Companion shopping Mean 4.68 6.19 5.40 2.87 2.64 4.93 2.57 4.28 5.43 (b-g) 3.62*** 49.306***
(i-g) 2.86***
SD 1.06 2.67 1.92 1.26 1.02 1.58 1.25 1.57 1.98
a)

One-way analysis of variance.

b)

Scheffe post hoc analysis.

***

p<.001.